President Obama signs equal pay law

[CrackerBarrel]

The one thing I don't understand is that if companies are paying women 78 cents on the dollar, from an economic interest standpoint the company would hire nothing but women or at least as many women as they could get, that's not the case. Why?

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

The one thing I don't understand is that if companies are paying women 78 cents on the dollar, from an economic interest standpoint the company would hire nothing but women or at least as many women as they could get, that's not the case. Why?

Maybe because it costs so much to train and replace us because once we marry and get knocked up we leave because that's all we really want in life

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

The one thing I don't understand is that if companies are paying women 78 cents on the dollar, from an economic interest standpoint the company would hire nothing but women or at least as many women as they could get, that's not the case. Why?

Think about this question...if it's cheaper to hire her and not hire any men....guess what problem you run into?

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

The one thing I don't understand is that if companies are paying women 78 cents on the dollar, from an economic interest standpoint the company would hire nothing but women or at least as many women as they could get, that's not the case. Why?

A company is going to pay somebody the lowest amount that they can. If women accept less money than men for the same job then so be it.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

Does the law officaly outlaw unfair pay....If so how does someone find this out legally? I heard once that if you ask, talk to, or find out another employee's pay that it is illegal and you can be fired...

It may be against a corporate policy, but it is NOT illegal. Government paid positions have to be publicly available. There is a state of Michigan web site where you can look up any employee's salary by their name. This includes universities, university hospitals, etc. Personally, I think when corporations take great measures and use threats to keep people from sharing salary information, they are usually trying to hide these kinds of unfair practices.

Originally Posted by PhiGam

A company is going to pay somebody the lowest amount that they can. If women accept less money than men for the same job then so be it.

If women are always offered less money everywhere, then they don't really have this option, do they? Obviously places that offer women a lower starting salary are discriminatory and would rather hire the man for the higher salary if they are going to have to pay that much. Additionally, it doesn't always happen at the time of the offer. It can happen with lower annual raises. Two people could start out the same but over time, if the woman only gets a 2% raise and the man gets 5%, things get out of whack very quickly. Then corporations institute policies like Thetagirl outlined, where they threaten to fire people who share salary info and the woman doesn't really know that she's being paid much less.

[Coramoor]

Originally Posted by AGDee

If women are always offered less money everywhere, then they don't really have this option, do they? Obviously places that offer women a lower starting salary are discriminatory and would rather hire the man for the higher salary if they are going to have to pay that much. Additionally, it doesn't always happen at the time of the offer. It can happen with lower annual raises. Two people could start out the same but over time, if the woman only gets a 2% raise and the man gets 5%, things get out of whack very quickly. Then corporations institute policies like Thetagirl outlined, where they threaten to fire people who share salary info and the woman doesn't really know that she's being paid much less.

So the gov't has to mandate how much one's raise will be each year?

If a woman only asks or accepts a 2% raise and a man asks for and won't accept anything less than 5%...how is that discrimination?

Also, how does this equal pay law take into account when a woman takes a leave of absence for a pregnancy? She just took of 6mo or a year from work, from gaining experience, from actually making her company money. It is only right that when she comes back she is not making as much as a man of equal talent that did not take that time off.

Hell, the list can go on and on why this is not so much an equal wage law, but an unequal wage law in favor of women.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Coramoor

So the gov't has to mandate how much one's raise will be each year?

If a woman only asks or accepts a 2% raise and a man asks for and won't accept anything less than 5%...how is that discrimination?

Also, how does this equal pay law take into account when a woman takes a leave of absence for a pregnancy? She just took of 6mo or a year from work, from gaining experience, from actually making her company money. It is only right that when she comes back she is not making as much as a man of equal talent that did not take that time off.

Hell, the list can go on and on why this is not so much an equal wage law, but an unequal wage law in favor of women.

You are making far too many assumptions. Nobody said the govt would mandate how much raises should be, only that they should be equal pay for equal work.

How does a man not accept less than a 5% raise? Quit??? And feed your family how???

Who in the world takes a 6 month or a year maternity leave???? No woman I know. We take 6 weeks, 12 at most, as allowed by FMLA. If I took more than 12 weeks, I would lose my job. Does the research show that only mother's have this significant pay difference? Matter of fact, it does NOT.

Assuming that the difference in pay is due to maternity leaves and an inability to be assertive is as chauvinistic as the men who think they can get away with paying women less money only because they are women.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Coramoor

So the gov't has to mandate how much one's raise will be each year?

If a woman only asks or accepts a 2% raise and a man asks for and won't accept anything less than 5%...how is that discrimination?

Also, how does this equal pay law take into account when a woman takes a leave of absence for a pregnancy? She just took of 6mo or a year from work, from gaining experience, from actually making her company money. It is only right that when she comes back she is not making as much as a man of equal talent that did not take that time off.

Hell, the list can go on and on why this is not so much an equal wage law, but an unequal wage law in favor of women.

You obviously don't realize that most pregnant women have to use vacation time for their maternity leave! Just because men can procreate like rabbits without effecting their careers doesn't mean that they should discriminate against their wives who are effected!

[Coramoor]

Haha, typical. Bring up examples of why there is a difference and you get angry responses.

Where exactly does this .78 cents figure come from? How do we even know that is a valid figure. I can think of about a dozen ways that such a study could find any figure it wanted by using biased variables.

I doubt very seriously that men go into a job interview demanding to see the salaries of every employee in their desired position to make sure they are being paid fairly!

You use something called the internet. It has all sorts of cool little tools and searches that allow you to figure out exactly how much money you should expect in your particular area.

Basically you are saying you go in to a job interview totally unprepared, do no homework on the company or how much they pay, and then say that you should get the same raise as someone else even if you don't ask for it. Oh and the gov't should mandate how much everyone is paid and how much their annual raises are.

Well maybe BO will come through for you...

[DrPhil]

All the political bullcrap and debate over whether the government should mandate equal pay aside.....

Discussions of gender inequality in the workforce are very similar to discussions of racial and ethnic inequality in the workforce.

There are official and unofficial reasons for the disparities. Some seem justified to those who want them to be justified. Such as, men generally get paid more because employers want employees who need less "family time" and can potentially work more. But looking beyond the surface and beyond profit margins, it is society's gender norms that make it such that men generally have fewer family responsibilities/expectations. Therefore, men would be hired, paid, and promoted based on societal factors beyond their qualifications and job performance.

On another note, I only expect male feminists and male proponents of gender equality to see this. I don't expect the average male to see this and especially not the average white man. Moreso than other males, white males have a history of being the primary breadwinner and being paid more than other gender and race categories (and feeling as though this disparity is justified for a number of reasons).